The enforcement and administration of liquor regulations and statutes is being questioned by a group of state lawmakers that includes a powerful senator whose
The concerns of more than 50 alcohol-industry representatives from around the state and several legislators were aired during a July 16 meeting in Mesilla that included harsh criticism of what some called “Gestapo” tactics by the state agencies that enforce administrative rules and criminal laws governing bars. The meeting was called by Sen. Mary Jane Garcia, D-Doña Ana and the majority whip, and was held seven weeks after her bar,
The meeting, which included representatives of the state’s regulation and licensing and public safety departments, was not announced to the public before it was held.
Garcia said her concerns have “been ongoing for quite some time” and have “nothing to do with the citation for
As a follow-up to the meeting, the Legislative Finance Committee sent a letter to the state’s Alcohol and Gaming Division last week stating that “public concerns have generated questions from LFC members regarding the administration and enforcement of alcohol license regulations.” The letter was written at the direction of Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming and chair of the LFC.
In the letter, the LFC asks for fiscal-year 2007 data on the time it took to process liquor license applications, information about federal funds received by the Alcohol and Gaming Division and location-specific information about enforcement action during the 2007 fiscal year and alcohol-related investigations from the past two years.
In addition to Garcia and Smith, the July 16 meeting was attended by Sens. Tim Jennings, D-Roswell and Mary Kay Papen, D-Las Cruces, and Reps. Joni Gutierrez, D-Las Cruces and Candy Spence Ezzell, R-Roswell. Several participants – most unwilling to speak on the record because of the politically sensitive nature of the topic – all said the meeting was colored by constant criticism of the enforcement and administration of the laws and regulations and included a number of stories told by people – including Garcia – who felt they or others had been treated unfairly.
Smith said that, in addition to requesting the information, he will place a review of the concerns on a future LFC meeting agenda, but he declined further comment. Sources said Smith is also scheduled to meet Tuesday with an official from the Richardson Administration to discuss the situation.
New regulations have sparked changes
The situation has been growing increasingly contentious since the Richardson Administration approved new regulations a year ago toughening penalties for serving minors and intoxicated people. Garcia and Gutierrez, whose brother owns a
Three
A fifth
The owners of the Welcome Inn – Garcia’s brother-in-law and nephew – were indicted in 1999 in a racketeering case that quickly turned political. While other defendants pleaded guilty to lesser charges, Miguel O. “Mike” Gonzales and his son, Michael Gonzales Jr., disputed allegations that they were running a crime ring out of the bar and accused District Attorney Susana Martinez of having a personal grudge against them.
After a long fight, the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered
Are the rules necessary or unfair?
While many believe the new regulations are necessary to combat drunken driving, binge drinking and other problems, some say they are unreasonable and place too much responsibility on bar owners and bartenders instead of on those who are drinking. That complaint was cited as the reason for the closure of at least three
Ezzell said the concerns expressed at the Mesilla meeting included “profiling – there is that going on, especially in the southern part of the state, and continued harassment.”
Ezzell said she was “a little frayed around the edges” during the contentious meeting, but said that’s because the administration is “being tyrant in my opinion. They are making up policy just because they can.”
The new rules were discussed, prior to approval, during a number of public meetings last year before the Richardson Administration made them official. The administration has created new rules on more than one occasion either instead of seeking statutory changes or after attempts to secure legislative approval failed. That has concerned a number of lawmakers.
“I think there is an awful lot of regulation being made that just skirts the process of putting it into statute,” Papen said.
In response to the recent meeting and the LFC request, Regulation and Licensing Department Superintendent Edward Lopez Jr. said his agency welcomes “the opportunity to continue the public dialogue.”
“It’s important to review our ongoing war on DWI with input from all interested parties – industry, legislators and anti-DWI advocates alike,” he said.
Garcia said she is interested in more discussion because unfair regulations and enforcement have led to the closing of a number of bars.
Details of the
Garcia’s bar and a bartender working there were cited on May 25 for serving an intoxicated person. The bartender has pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charge, and the case is pending. The bar could be fined up to $10,000, but the Regulation and Licensing Department is proposing a $1,000 fine and a one-day suspension of alcohol sales on a Friday. You can read Page One of the department’s letter to
Garcia and her sister Elodia, owners of the bar, have not yet responded.
It was Elodia Garcia who was present at the bar the night the citation was issued. According to the report from the Special Investigation Division of the Department of Public Safety (read Page One by clicking here, Page Two here and Page Three here), an officer conducted a walk-through of the bar as part of a special underage enforcement operation. He noticed a man who was “obviously intoxicated” sitting at the bar with a beer in front of him. The man’s blood-alcohol level was 0.18. The legal limit to drive is 0.08.
A security guard at the bar, when asked why the man had a beer in front of him when he was obviously intoxicated, said it was his “last one,” the report states.
Elodia Garcia became “very upset” when she was notified about the citation, the report states, adding that she “stated that her sister was a state senator. She then demanded a business card from me, which I then gave her.” As the officer left, the report states, he apologized to Elodia Garcia “for the inconvenience” and tried to shake her hand, but she refused and “mumbled something under hear breath.”
Senator Garcia called the meeting shortly thereafter. She told me she was not in town when the citation was issued and said she could tell me nothing except to say that her arranging of the July 16 meeting was not related to the citation.
A prior version of this posting incorrectly stated that